Is there a point to checking blind? (1 Viewer)

upNdown

Royal Flush
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
21,298
Reaction score
36,144
Location
boston
i see this move a lot, and I've never quite understood it. Is there a strategic point to it? Are people representing something when they do it? Is it just a way of disguising your reaction to the flop or the turn or whenever you do it?
Minor issue, I guess, and maybe I'm over thinking things. But I've never felt the urge to do it, but like I said, I see some guys doing it a lot.
 
I have a buddy that over uses this move. He does it several times a session. I don't know why honestly.

There was one time a buddy and I (I think @Azcat ) blind bet/re raised each other every street. I'm sure there were a few beers doing the talking. I don't remember the end results. It was a 100ish dollar pot lol.
 
I've done it (at a casino) when I suspect that the initial raiser has a big hand, and I have a hand that could potentially pay off if hit (something like 89suited). Assuming if I hit but have checked, hey will most likely lead out. Sometimes a weaker hand may check behind potentially revealing the relative strength of their hand. I used to do it more, but I may only do it once per session, if at all any more.

In a home game, I'll randomly do it, but it is more to have fun. Of course, if I haven't looked at my cards, I may check dark.... or bet it hard. More likely betting than checking :)

@Chippy McChiperson has stated many times that I play better when I don't look at my cards...

Mark
 
Last edited:
In tournament play, I will check blind when multiple players have an opportunity to eliminate a player who is already all-in. To me, it is a legal way to essentially request that the other player not bet unless they are positive they will knock out the all-in player. I will do it in a way that makes it seem like checking blind is obviously what we are going to do for the hand. If I'm dealing, I'll add a small pause to give them the chance to check blind as well. If they do, I will then check blind the next level and see if they essentially agree to check it all the way.
 
In tournament play, I will check blind when multiple players have an opportunity to eliminate a player who is already all-in. To me, it is a legal way to essentially request that the other player not bet unless they are positive they will knock out the all-in player. I will do it in a way that makes it seem like checking blind is obviously what we are going to do for the hand. If I'm dealing, I'll add a small pause to give them the chance to check blind as well. If they do, I will then check blind the next level and see if they essentially agree to check it all the way.

If you're dealing you should deal and not use it to your advantage. Sorta shady IMO.
 
If you're dealing you should deal and not use it to your advantage. Sorta shady IMO.
I'm ethically comfortable with a half second pause to wait for a player's action after I have already declared an action of my own. To deal immediately and not give them a chance to act would be unfair, as I would be eliminating the opportunity they might want to bet dark after my dark check, which they have a right to do. Nothing shady about it, rather it is the most fair practice.

Edit: I don't get paid to deal, and I would also pause for action after a blind check if I were dealing a table where I am not even in the hand.
 
@DealerScott Does it all the time in mixed games. It's a horrible play. Perhaps he will explain why in 2018. :rolleyes: He's pretty busy lately training local players in 3-hour post-game hand history discussions.
 
For me I see the OMC's at PLO8 do this to suggest "check it down with me" when HU in a hand. I don't subscribe to it and I openly state I'm against it (takes the poker away) but alas its common for the old folks who transitioned from limit to pot limit in PL08 to try to reduce variance further.

For holdem and non-OMC's its perceived as a cheap way to trap sets if obtained, esp when check-blind person perceives villain to have an overpair.

It'll be done until the end of time but basically I tend to bet against check blind folks. Its a terrible play.
 
It'll be done until the end of time but basically I tend to bet against check blind folks. Its a terrible play.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
For me I see the OMC's at PLO8 do this to suggest "check it down with me" when HU in a hand. I don't subscribe to it and I openly state I'm against it (takes the poker away) but alas its common for the old folks who transitioned from limit to pot limit in PL08 to try to reduce variance further.

For holdem and non-OMC's its perceived as a cheap way to trap sets if obtained, esp when check-blind person perceives villain to have an overpair.

It'll be done until the end of time but basically I tend to bet against check blind folks. Its a terrible play.
Funny you say that, because I almost mentioned that I see it most out of OMC's. And now I'm laughing, because when I saw it last week, it was from an old guy, drinking coffee.
Loose, passive, calling station, checking blind, raise at your own risk because you know he's gonna call. Makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
 
Funny you say that, because I almost mentioned that I see it most out of OMC's. And now I'm laughing, because when I saw it last week, it was from an old guy, drinking coffee.
Loose, passive, calling station, checking blind, raise at your own risk because you know he's gonna call. Makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

I personally love having calling stations at the table you know they're always going to pay you off
 
I personally love having calling stations at the table you know they're always going to pay you off
There's definitely some comfort in having somebody so predictable at the table. But it can be annoying in tournaments, when you don't have all the time in the world to wait them out - they frustrate aggressive play.
 
For me I see the OMC's at PLO8 do this to suggest "check it down with me" when HU in a hand. I don't subscribe to it and I openly state I'm against it (takes the poker away) but alas its common for the old folks who transitioned from limit to pot limit in PL08 to try to reduce variance further.

For holdem and non-OMC's its perceived as a cheap way to trap sets if obtained, esp when check-blind person perceives villain to have an overpair.

It'll be done until the end of time but basically I tend to bet against check blind folks. Its a terrible play.

Yeah, but that one time it worked when Marcel Luske taught it to David Williams and then he trapped Josh Arieh...
 
@DealerScott Does it all the time in mixed games. It's a horrible play. Perhaps he will explain why in 2018. :rolleyes: He's pretty busy lately training local players in 3-hour post-game hand history discussions.

Funny guy. I don't mind discussing poker strategy. Just like you guys do in here. But I definitely don't give away all my secrets. As far as checking blind. Yes I do it a lot. Sometimes it backfires on me. But over the years it has been a profitable play. Without going into too much detail. I'd rather be in position. If not I like to check dark in many situations so that my opponent can not determine whether I liked that card or not. And it also feigns weakness. So players tend to think I can't have a big hand in that spot. Long story short. Checking dark has served me well.
 
i see this move a lot, and I've never quite understood it.
When I'm first to act right before the flop comes, I often don't take any action blind, but when I do, I'm more likely to bet blind than check blind.
 
I've never seen the point of it. I know when someone checks blind to me, it doesn't change my thinking.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom